Thompson

(HC) Alford v. Thompson

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 4, 20242:21-cv-02293California312 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 COURTNEY RICARDO ALFORD, No. 2:21-cv-02293-TLN-AC 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 PAUL THOMPSON, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On February 6, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on all parties, and contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.